Why I’m Thankful for Bart Ehrman

For some Christians, Bart Ehrman is a kind of bogeyman. He marches in with a Ph.D. from Princeton, claiming that the biblical writers were mistaken about parts of Jesus’ life. He says that some of the books of the New Testament were deliberately forged in the names of apostles like Paul and Peter. He offers numerous reasons why the text of the New Testament is suspect. He even implies that there may be unscrupulous reasons why seminary-trained ministers keep promoting the doctrine of inerrancy when they know that the Bible contains mistakes. So why am I thankful for Bart Ehrman?

He Shows Us That We Have Gotten Lazy. Ehrman challenges us to look at the biblical text more closely than many of us do. If recent polls are remotely accurate, the average Christian barely opens his or her Bible during the week. If he or she opens it at all, it’s on Sunday morning – assuming it wasn’t left in the car or at home. Many of us carry a Bible just for show, or as little more than an accessory for our Sunday attire. The basic lack of familiarity many Christians have with the Bible—the very book they claim is the Word of God—is appalling.

He Forces Us to Think Through the Evidence. Ehrman’s conclusions aren’t always correct – that’s why we have to think. Some of his work is very helpful, particularly his book Did Jesus Exist? in which he defends the historicity of Jesus. But he has written extensively on the supposed errors—reaching into the tens if not hundreds of thousands—found in biblical manuscripts. This means that we must understand the objections raised against the reliability of the biblical text, and know how to answer them. Ehrman’s objections aren’t unanswerable; in fact, many highly-qualified scholars have answered them repeatedly. It’s up to us to be familiar with these points when our skeptical neighbors ask important questions.

He Defends the Historicity of Jesus. In Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Ehrman does a respectable job of presenting the evidence for a historical Jesus. Although there are some errors in the book, he capably explains historical method. He also shows why the claims that Jesus was merely a myth are, at the end of the day, fairly silly. This book even inspired two rebuttals from a number of these mythicists, such as Earl Doherty’s The End of an Illusion: How Bart Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist” Has Laid the Case for an Historical Jesus to Rest and Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus (by multiple authors). (I have not read these books, mainly because (1) I refuse to spend good money on the intellectually vacuous and evidentially bereft material I can get free of charge from any number of mythicist blogs and websites, and (2) I’ve already read this kind of stuff elsewhere, and it isn’t impressive. Mythicists have a habit of rehashing the same material even after it’s been irrefutably answered.)

Human beings tend to be reactionary creatures. We tend to attack what we dislike, which includes those who disagree with us. We see challenges as something to conquer rather than something from which we can learn. Many people see Ehrman this way. I don’t. (I happen to like the guy. I briefly met him at a lecture at Middle Tennessee State University a couple of years ago) I prefer to see him as someone who can help me think through my faith—and the evidence supporting it—even though I powerfully disagree with some of his positions.

Share this:

Like this:

Post navigation

5 thoughts on “Why I’m Thankful for Bart Ehrman”

Thank you for bringing this forward. I have been asked on my blog if I was familiar with Erhman — I presume it was because I was getting on about how people practice eisegesis more often than exegesis when it comes to select texts in the Bible.

Like yourself, I do not agree with much of what he purports — I think he goes from one extreme to the other — but I like that he gets after the old school interpretations that many popular doctrines are based upon today.

I also like Patrick Navas’ book — DIVINE TRUTH OR HUMAN TRADITION? A Reconsideration of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures — for the very same reason. He brings forward so much of what I have pondered as regards interpretations of select text and passages of scripture and the veracity of teachings based upon those common and popular interpretations.

I think it its good to question and discuss the possibility that maybe – just maybe – there was some (or a lot) of church politics going on in the 3rd and 4th centuries, that resulted in alterations of original text — inclusions and exclusions of content to support select teachings / doctrines.

If Satan was willing to misuse scripture when directly tempting the Christ, then who is to say that he didn’t have a hand in the canonization of the Greek Texts and the blood that was spilled as a result of the church’s interpretations of the texts and their enforcement of those interpretations — and all the bad blood that resulted in all the various denominations (divisions) among the body of Christ today?

it is true that Christians do not know how to study the bible anymore, it is because we believe in a clergy/lay system and we let men tell us they are sound, and we just believe it rather that allowing the Holy Spirit to prove/try/qualify every word they say through every Christian (James 3:1: 1 John 4:1). This book is nutty and still is based upon the presumption that all men cannot prove what is true by simply reading the word of God to see if man’s conclusions are correct. The church needs to get away from all doctrinal books and go back to the bible, and back to a time when Christians including our preachers and elders knew the word of God.

Hello Randall,
You’ve got a lot going on in your response. I wouldn’t say that Christians in general do not know how to study the Bible (some do, no doubt), although we could all stand a lot more teaching in this area. Proper interpretation is key to understanding. Also, you might want to check those Scripture references – they don’t quite go with your comment, unless I’m missing something. But the comment that Ehrman’s book is “nutty” is what puzzles me. I mentioned his book on the defense of the historicity of Jesus – is that the one you’re talking about? If so, it’s a pretty powerful defense of Jesus, even though it does come from a “happy agnostic.”

As a fellow agnostic and biblical scholar, I am really grateful for Bart D. Ehrman and his work. I think he applies the right amount of affection, criticism, and scholarship that one needs to be a biblical scholar. Plus, in a scene that for some reason has really embraced ‘the Christ Myth,’ he has really thrown himself out there!

I may be too new to jump in … but I so-o-o agree with the need to “think things through.” I used that specific criterion when hiring people in my government job.
When I got my M.Div ,I painfully remember how, in some courses, the professor mentioned something like the “fact” that ‘Jesus did not really say that’ or Paul’s authorship was unlikely etc etc without ever continuing critical thinking. Bultman’s ‘demytholization’ was in vogue … and, I did have that question in mind that Bart Ehrman has exposed: — i.e how does that not lead to a conclusion that they are being occasionally, conveniently dishonest? But, it was (I am guessing) “noble revisions by noble people for noble purposes.” This was not logically tenable and stranger still was the fact that that candid discussion — or a disclosure of alternative credible perspectives — was virtually absent. And, of course, harmonization of accounts was simply ‘taboo’. (ps I must add the words “as I recall” to my recollections, but they still ring in my ears’ so to speak.’ )
I see Paul “thinking things through” as he talks about the implications if Jesus did not resurrect …. even if his audience was not ready to be drawn along in his exposé. Perhaps we Christians have shied away from “thinking things through” — perhaps we should have done it “pro-actively” well before Bard Ehrman’s books.
PS — On a personal note I am also a happy Bible-believing Christian with a vibrant and rewarding interest in “apologetics” ever since I converted. “Seek and ye shall find” is surely a divine promise applicable to this realm. Your site does look promising indeed.